Cases | Larue v. State, 397 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1981) | 2018
The defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess, possession of, and the unlawful importation of marijuana. Bail was set at $250,000, plus a 5% surcharge that went to the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, pursuant to § 960.21. However, because the defendant attended all appropriate proceedings, bail was not forfeited and the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund did not benefit from the five percent surcharge because it received no percentage of the bail. However, to post bail the defendant had to pay a non-refundable, $25,250 premium to a bail bondsman; this would have been $625 lower had there been no 5% surcharge included in the bail amount. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the surcharge, alleging that the addition of the 5% surcharge violated his right to reasonable bail, but the trial court specifically upheld the statute as constitutional. On direct appeal from the trial court, the supreme court held that “the purpose of section 960.25’s bail bond surcharge is not related to securing an accused’s attendance at trial and does not in any manner benefit the bail bonding system.” Because “[p]retrial financial burdens imposed on criminal defendants for purposes other than securing the accused’s attendance at trial and totally unrelated to the bail bonding system cannot be constitutionally allowed,” the provision creating a 5% surcharge benefiting the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund was unconstitutional. The decision applied prospectively.